Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gamez v. Ryan

United States District Court, D. Arizona

April 24, 2014

Robert Carrasco Gamez, Jr., Plaintiff,
v.
Charles L. Ryan, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

STEPHEN M. McNAMEE, Senior District Judge.

Plaintiff Robert Carrasco Gamez, Jr., who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex, Browning Unit in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983. Plaintiff also filed a motion for recusal of Magistrate Judge Aspey and motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 7, 8.) In an Order filed on March 24, 2014, the Court dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim with leave to amend within 30 days and denied Plaintiff's motions. (Doc. 9.) Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion for extension of time within which to amend. (Doc. 12, 13.) The Court will grant the motion for an extension of time but will deny the motion for reconsideration.

I. Standard for Reconsideration

Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F.Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). A motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the district court "(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Such motions should not be used for the purpose of asking a court "to rethink what the court had already thought through - rightly or wrongly.'" Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F.Supp. at 1351 ( quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). A motion for reconsideration "may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation." Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Nor may a motion for reconsideration repeat any argument previously made in support of or in opposition to a motion. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F.Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988).

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the denial of his motion for recusal and motion for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff provides no basis for reconsideration of the denial of his motion for recusal apart from rulings made by Magistrate Judge Aspey in some of Plaintiff's other cases. As discussed in the Court's prior Order, that is not a basis for recusal. Plaintiff has not otherwise alleged or shown that the Court's denial of the recusal motion was clearly in error or manifestly unjust, an intervening change in controlling law, or newly-discovered evidence. Accordingly, reconsideration of the denial of the motion for recusal will be denied.

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the denial of his motion for appointment of counsel because he, as an inmate, cannot obtain portions of other inmates' correction files, which he speculates will show that Defendants knew of threats to Plaintiff posed by other inmates.[1] That is, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration because inmates are prohibited from accessing the type of information that he believes exists to support his claims. Plaintiff has not, however, alleged or shown that the Court clearly erred in denying his motions or that the denial was manifestly unjust. Nor has Plaintiff asserted an intervening change in the controlling law or newly discovered evidence relevant to Plaintiff's ostensible claim(s) in this case. Accordingly, reconsideration of the denial of his motion for appointment of counsel will be denied.

II. Motion for Extension to Amend

Plaintiff also seeks a 30-day extension of time within which to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 13.) Plaintiff seeks an extension because he was not provided with a copy of the court-approved form complaint, [2] he is currently preparing a reply in his habeas corpus case, CV12-0639-TUC-JGZ (JR), [3] and due to deadlines in several of his other pending cases. The Court will grant Plaintiff's motion to the extent set forth below.

III. Warnings

A. Release

Plaintiff must pay the unpaid balance of the filing fee within 120 days of his release. Also, within 30 days of his release, he must either (1) notify the Court that he intends to pay the balance or (2) show good cause, in writing, why he cannot. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this action.

B. Address Changes

Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion for other relief with a notice of change of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.